Shaikh Bashir S/O Sk. Karim vs Maulana Abdul Majid S/O Sk Bashir
2017 Latest Caselaw 7352 Bom

                                                       1                                        219.2004.Revn.doc


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

          CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.219 OF 2004


Shaikh Bashir S/o Sk Karim 
Age : 65 yrs, Occu : Nil, 
R/o. Baijipura, Dist. Aurangabad                                                                       .. Applicant 

         VERSUS 

1.       Maulana Abdul Majid S/o Sk Bashir, 
         Age : 40 yrs, occu : Private Service, 
         R/o. Baijipura, Near Ganjeshahida 
         Masjid, Aurangabad 

2.       Abdul Rahim s/o Sk Bashir
         Age : 35 yrs, Occu : Mason 
         R/o Baijipura, Near Gangeshida 
         Masjid, Aurangabad 

3.       Maulana Abdul Latif s/o Sk Bashir
         Age : 30 yrs, Occu : Private Service 
         R/o. Baijipura near Ganjeshahida Masjid, 
         Baijipura, Near Ganjeshahida Masjid, 
         Aurangabad 

4.       The State of Maharashtra                                                                .. Respondents 

                                                          .....

            Advocate for Applicant :    Shri .A.A. Khan (absent) 
                           
          Advocate for Respondents No.1 to 3 :   Shri S.V. Advant 
               APP for Respondent - State : Shri S.P. Tiwari 
                                     ...

                                                                   CORAM : P.R. BORA, J.

Dated: September 20, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

1. None has appeared for the applicant. The record shows

2 219.2004.Revn.doc

that, though the matter is pending for final disposal, the parties to

the present proceeding are not attending the matter. Today, the

learned Counsel for the respondents is present before the Court and

has shown readiness to argue the matter. Since the applicant is not

attending the present matter and his learned Counsel has also not

turned up, I looked into the objections raised in the revision

application and also perused the impugned judgment to find out

whether there is any substance in the grounds of objections so raised

in the revision application.

2. Perusal of the impugned judgment revealed that, the

revision applicant had filed an application seeking maintenance from

the respondents invoking the provisions under Section 125 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure. It was the prayer of the applicant that,

since he has become incapable of doing any job or work and since he

does not have any source to maintain himself and further that, the

respondents who are his major sons are having sufficient income,

adequate maintenance be awarded to him from his major sons.

3. The application was resisted by the respondents on facts

as well as on law. The learned Family Court after having assessed

oral and documentary evidence brought before it, dismissed the

3 219.2004.Revn.doc

application filed by the applicant. Aggrieved by, the applicant has

preferred the present revision application.

4. Perused the impugned Judgment. It is apparently

revealed that, the Family Court has appropriately considered the

contentions of the applicant and has turned down the said

contentions by assigning reasons therefor. The learned Family Court

has refused to grant any maintenance to the applicant observing that,

the applicant has failed to prove the very basic facts that, he does not

have any other source to maintain himself and further that, the

respondents have sufficient means to pay the separate maintenance.

5. After having perused the impugned judgment, it does not

appear to me that, the learned Family Court has committed any error

in rejecting the application filed by the applicant. As has been

observed by the learned Family Court, the applicant is at present also

residing with his second wife and the children from the second wife.

It is further observed that, though in the petition it was the

contention of the applicant that, his children from second wife are

minor, in the evidence before Court the applicant admitted that, his

sons from the second wife are major and they all are residing jointly.

It has also been observed by the learned Family Court that, from the

4 219.2004.Revn.doc

ancestral house the applicant had transferred five rooms in the name

of his second wife. The learned Family Court has further observed

that, there is further nothing brought on record to reach to the

conclusion that, the children from his second wife are not

maintaining him along with whom he is residing. The learned Family

Court has also considered the evidence adduced by the respondents

and has recorded a finding that the said respondents are not in

position to pay separate maintenance to the applicant. In the

revision application also, no such material is brought on record to

take any contrary view taken by the learned Family Court.

6. After having considered the material on record, it does

not appear to me that, any interference is warranted in the judgment

and order impugned in the present revision application. Revision

application being devoid of any substance deserves to be dismissed

and is accordingly dismissed.

7. Rule discharged.

( P.R. BORA, J )

ggp